4 ms·

> If browsers are simplifying the URI scheme for the alleged benefit of users, how do we expect these users to know anything about addresses? You've accuratel

by Kalium 7y ago

> If browsers are simplifying the URI scheme for the alleged benefit of users, how do we expect these users to know anything about addresses? You've accurately assessed the current state of affairs. The current average user knows essentially nothing about addresses. They might have a vague sense that domain matters, but that's about it. Displaying more information that they do not understand does not enhance the security of the average user. Displaying more information useful to the exceptional user (i.e., us) has to be weighted the degree to which it leads average users to a learned helplessness reaction.

masswerk 7y ago
I don't see, why this should be a matter of capitulation, especially on the desktop environment. Users have been able to maintain a basic understanding of similar schemes and were able to operate them for centuries. Compared to most real world schemes and regulations, basic URIs are exceptionally regulated (there is such a thing as a well-formed URL) and easy to understand. What changed? (My go to example is the level of understanding required to operate a kitchen and to prepare a meal, which is surprisingly high, but not worth even mentioning. Users do understand the difference of a spoon and a knife, as long as they understand the relevance of this to them. They are even able to operate an oven and to deviate from complex recipes in creative ways, while finding and managing all kind of equipment and managing time critical work flows. Is a similar operational understanding of what may be the most important technology of our time really asking too much?)
- Kalium 7y ago
  You're absolutely correct that URIs are well-regulated, well-defined, and easy to understand for those with appropriately technical backgrounds. You're also correct that users don't need to understand in significant technical depth how URIs work in order to use them for most daily operations. In my opinion, what's changed is that someone won the political battle between "URIs are so simple and well-defined! Everyone understands them." and "Users don't understand URIs" camps. With that said, it's perhaps worth considering that most users might regard computers as essentially magical and fundamentally incomprehensible things. In such a context, could it be possible that it might actually be too much to ask for your average user to have a good operational understanding of something that seems to them to be fundamentally incomprehensible? A great many people have already learned helplessness in the face of technology. Could it be that decades of exposing people to the elegant simplicity of URLs has not created widespread operational comprehension?
  - masswerk 7y ago
    What you're describing is the shining example of a wholehearted jump into self inflicted dogmatic slumber (© Kant) – It may be the general trend, but I, for my part, insist on enlightenment. (What's the alternative? Just stumble into the pits the dogma didn't provide for? If I'm hurt, it's the will of the Web? – "Nexus vult", as the web-fathers put it?)

by Kalium 7y ago

masswerk 7y ago

I don't see, why this should be a matter of capitulation, especially on the desktop environment. Users have been able to maintain a basic understanding of similar schemes and were able to operate them for centuries. Compared to most real world schemes and regulations, basic URIs are exceptionally regulated (there is such a thing as a well-formed URL) and easy to understand. What changed? (My go to example is the level of understanding required to operate a kitchen and to prepare a meal, which is surprisingly high, but not worth even mentioning. Users do understand the difference of a spoon and a knife, as long as they understand the relevance of this to them. They are even able to operate an oven and to deviate from complex recipes in creative ways, while finding and managing all kind of equipment and managing time critical work flows. Is a similar operational understanding of what may be the most important technology of our time really asking too much?)

Kalium 7y ago
You're absolutely correct that URIs are well-regulated, well-defined, and easy to understand for those with appropriately technical backgrounds. You're also correct that users don't need to understand in significant technical depth how URIs work in order to use them for most daily operations. In my opinion, what's changed is that someone won the political battle between "URIs are so simple and well-defined! Everyone understands them." and "Users don't understand URIs" camps. With that said, it's perhaps worth considering that most users might regard computers as essentially magical and fundamentally incomprehensible things. In such a context, could it be possible that it might actually be too much to ask for your average user to have a good operational understanding of something that seems to them to be fundamentally incomprehensible? A great many people have already learned helplessness in the face of technology. Could it be that decades of exposing people to the elegant simplicity of URLs has not created widespread operational comprehension?
- masswerk 7y ago
  What you're describing is the shining example of a wholehearted jump into self inflicted dogmatic slumber (© Kant) – It may be the general trend, but I, for my part, insist on enlightenment. (What's the alternative? Just stumble into the pits the dogma didn't provide for? If I'm hurt, it's the will of the Web? – "Nexus vult", as the web-fathers put it?)